The Supreme Court of India declined to hear a plea seeking urgent intervention regarding police actions during a significant protest by students, organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) at Jantar Mantar. The protest focused on the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak and culminated in clashes with police, raising serious concerns about the treatment of demonstrators.
This decision came on Wednesday, when a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant dismissed the plea for an urgent listing presented by the petitioner’s counsel. The lawyer argued that the students were advocating for critical issues affecting their future, including the integrity of the NEET-UG examination and necessary reforms at the National Testing Agency (NTA).
In response, the Chief Justice expressed frustration at the torrent of urgent requests, stating, “Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time.” The Bench’s refusal to entertain the plea indicates a reluctance to intervene in matters of civil protest unless compelling evidence of immediate harm exists.
During the session, the petitioner provided videos that allegedly depicted heavy-handed police actions against peaceful protesters. However, the Chief Justice remained uninterested, stating emphatically, “We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch.” This dismissive stance underscores the Court’s focus on maintaining judicial efficiency, though it raises questions about the rights of protesters.
This development follows a similar decision by the Delhi High Court on the same day, which also refused an urgent hearing concerning the police’s conduct during the protests. The parallel between these incidents highlights a growing trend in legal institutions to approach student-led advocacy with caution.
The CJP has organized gatherings demanding accountability from the education authorities, most notably targeting Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Protesters have called for immediate reforms in the NEET examination process, which they believe is compromised by systemic issues like the alleged paper leak.
Further intensifying the protests, there was a reported march towards Parliament where demonstrators faced significant police resistance. Witnesses and advocates claim excessive force was used, leading to several detentions. Such incidents have spurred public outcry and intensified scrutiny over police protocols during civil demonstrations.
Despite the refusal from the Supreme Court regarding the urgent plea, it is essential to note that their comments focused strictly on the procedural aspect and did not address the core allegations. This lack of engagement on the merits leaves open the question of how the judiciary will respond to students’ grievances in the future.
As the protests continue, students and activists vow to maintain pressure on the government until their demands for resignation and reform are met. The unfolding situation highlights the tension between state authorities and youth advocacy, compelling a national dialogue on the rights to peaceful assembly and the scrutiny of governmental actions against those expressing dissent.
